David Cameron and Ed Miliband walk through the Members' Lobby before the Queen's Speech at the State Opening of Parliament. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

PMQs review: Miliband halts Cameron's advance on the economy

The Labour leader won a rare victory on the Tories' strongest territory. 

The fallout from the Autumn Statement and the focus on the cuts the Tories would make means that Labour is feeling better about its position on the economy than it has done for months. Voter anxiety about the threat to public services, they believe, could turn the election in their favour. In a sign of this new confidence, Ed Miliband led on the issue (on which the Conservatives have long held the advantage) at the final PMQs of the year. Noting that it was the Office for Budget Responsibility that first drew attention to the fact that public spending would fall to its lowest level since the 1930s under George Osborne's plans, he quipped: "Why does he believe the OBR has joined the BBC in a conspiracy against the Conservative Party?" Having been criticised in the past by Labour MPs for dropping messages too quickly, Miliband is determined to keep pushing the "1930s" line. 

Cameron replied that in real-terms public spending would merely fall to the same level as in 2002-03, but Miliband had a neat riposte: "He's spent four years saying we spent too much. Now he's saying we spent too little." The PM later turned to the deficit and the fact that Labour's plans would allow greater borrowing than the Conservatives'. But Ed Balls's pledge to cut the deficit every year and the Tories' promise of £7bn of unfunded tax cuts means that Miliband is better-armed than in the past. As well as creating a sense of risk around public services, Labour is now able to point to the danger of another VAT rise: something Cameron notably refused to rule out today. The PM was able to turn the leaked Labour strategy document on immigration to his advantage, highlighting its reference to the Conservatives' 17-point lead on managing the economy. But Miliband remained unruffled. The Labour leader never quite landed a knock-out blow. Yet given that the ecnomy is traditionally the Tories' strongest suit, and today's positive employment and earnings figures, Miliband will be content with a points victory. 

The two men's closing exchange neatly framed the battle to come: Miliband charged the Tories with a plan not for "balancing the books" but for "slashing the state". Cameron declared: "They can't talk about the deficit because it's fallen, they can't talk about growth because it's rising, they can't talk about jobs because we're increasing them." Miliband's aim is to persuade voters that the threat to public services is too great to award the Tories another term in government. Cameron's is to persuade them that the threat to growth and jobs is too great to gamble on an untested opposition. The election will likely turn on which scenario voters fear more. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Show Hide image

Calum Kerr on Governing the Digital Economy

With the publication of the UK Digital Strategy we’ve seen another instalment in the UK Government’s ongoing effort to emphasise its digital credentials.

As the SNP’s Digital Spokesperson, there are moves here that are clearly welcome, especially in the area of skills and a recognition of the need for large scale investment in fibre infrastructure.

But for a government that wants Britain to become the “leading country for people to use digital” it should be doing far more to lead on the field that underpins so much of a prosperous digital economy: personal data.

If you want a picture of how government should not approach personal data, just look at the Concentrix scandal.

Last year my constituency office, like countless others across the country, was inundated by cases from distressed Tax Credit claimants, who found their payments had been stopped for spurious reasons.

This scandal had its roots in the UK’s current patchwork approach to personal data. As a private contractor, Concentrix had bought data on a commercial basis and then used it to try and find undeclared partners living with claimants.

In one particularly absurd case, a woman who lived in housing provided by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation had to resort to using a foodbank during the appeals process in order to prove that she did not live with Joseph Rowntree: the Quaker philanthropist who died in 1925.

In total some 45,000 claimants were affected and 86 per cent of the resulting appeals saw the initial decision overturned.

This shows just how badly things can go wrong if the right regulatory regimes are not in place.

In part this problem is a structural one. Just as the corporate world has elevated IT to board level and is beginning to re-configure the interface between digital skills and the wider workforce, government needs to emulate practices that put technology and innovation right at the heart of the operation.

To fully leverage the benefits of tech in government and to get a world-class data regime in place, we need to establish a set of foundational values about data rights and citizenship.

Sitting on the committee of the Digital Economy Bill, I couldn’t help but notice how the elements relating to data sharing, including with private companies, were rushed through.

The lack of informed consent within the Bill will almost certainly have to be looked at again as the Government moves towards implementing the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation.

This is an example of why we need democratic oversight and an open conversation, starting from first principles, about how a citizen’s data can be accessed.

Personally, I’d like Scotland and the UK to follow the example of the Republic of Estonia, by placing transparency and the rights of the citizen at the heart of the matter, so that anyone can access the data the government holds on them with ease.

This contrasts with the mentality exposed by the Concentrix scandal: all too often people who come into contact with the state are treated as service users or customers, rather than as citizens.

This paternalistic approach needs to change.  As we begin to move towards the transformative implementation of the internet of things and 5G, trust will be paramount.

Once we have that foundation, we can start to grapple with some of the most pressing and fascinating questions that the information age presents.

We’ll need that trust if we want smart cities that make urban living sustainable using big data, if the potential of AI is to be truly tapped into and if the benefits of digital healthcare are really going to be maximised.

Clearly getting accepted ethical codes of practice in place is of immense significance, but there’s a whole lot more that government could be doing to be proactive in this space.

Last month Denmark appointed the world’s first Digital Ambassador and I think there is a compelling case for an independent Department of Technology working across all government departments.

This kind of levelling-up really needs to be seen as a necessity, because one thing that we can all agree on is that that we’ve only just scratched the surface when it comes to developing the link between government and the data driven digital economy. 

In January, Hewlett Packard Enterprise and the New Statesman convened a discussion on this topic with parliamentarians from each of the three main political parties and other experts.  This article is one of a series from three of the MPs who took part, with an  introduction from James Johns of HPE, Labour MP, Angela Eagle’s view and Conservative MP, Matt Warman’s view

Calum Kerr is SNP Westminster Spokesperson for Digital